Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches on, open-mouthed, thinking of the words of a very famous song:

"How many death will it take till he knowsThat too many people have died?"

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:07 am

In this case, the quantity of victims doesn't seem to have made an impact.

I had an idea a while back, and then someone (in)famous wrote that same idea in an article on his site. He's considered a lefty extremist and all that, but after this, what options are left?

Read what he had to say about Emmett Till:

March 13th, 2013 4:50 AMAmerica, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)By Michael Moore

The year was 1955. Emmett Till was a young African American boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi. One day Emmett was seen "flirting" with a white woman in town, and for that he was mutilated and murdered at the age of fourteen. He was found with part of a cotton gin tied around his neck with a string of barbed wire. His killers, two white men, had shot him in the head before they dumped him in the river.

Emmett Till's body was found and returned to Chicago. To the shock of many, his mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so that the public could see what happens to a little boy's body when bigots decide he is less than human. She wanted photographers to take pictures of her mutilated son and freely publish them. More than 10,000 mourners came to the funeral home, and the photo of Emmett Till appeared in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

"I just wanted the world to see," she said. "I just wanted the world to see."

The world did see, and nothing was ever the same again for the white supremacists of the United States of America. Because of Emmett Till, because of that shocking photograph of this little dead boy, just a few months later, "the revolt officially began on December 1, 1955" (from Eyes on the Prize) when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The historic bus boycott began and, with the images of Emmett Till still fresh in the minds of many Americans, there was no turning back.

In March of 1965, the police of Selma, Alabama, brutally beat, hosed and tear-gassed a group of African Americans for simply trying to cross a bridge during a protest march. The nation was shocked by images of blacks viciously maimed and injured. So, too, was the President. Just one week later, Lyndon Johnson called for a gathering of the U.S. Congress and he went and stood before them in joint session and told them to pass a bill he was introducing that night – the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs – of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

Bush was able to pull it off because his handlers, Misters Cheney and Rumsfeld, knew that the most important thing to do from the get-go was to control the images of the war, to guarantee that nothing like a My Lai-style photograph ever appeared in the U.S. press.

And that is why you never see a picture any more of the kind of death and destruction that might make you get up off your couch and run out of the house screaming bloody murder at those responsible for these atrocities.

That is why now, after the children's massacre in Newtown, the absolute last thing the National Rifle Association wants out there in the public domain is ANY images of what happened that tragic day.

But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called "shameful" and "disgraceful" and "sick." How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them.

But this will be a false outrage. Because the real truth is this: We do not want to be confronted with what the actual results of a violent society looks like. Of what a society that starts illegal wars, that executes criminals (or supposed criminals), that strikes or beats one of its women every 15 seconds, and shoots 30 of its own citizens every single day looks like. Oh, no, please – DO NOT MAKE US LOOK AT THAT!

Because if we were to seriously look at the 20 slaughtered children – I mean really look at them, with their bodies blown apart, many of them so unrecognizable the only way their parents could identify them was by the clothes they were wearing – what would be our excuse not to act? Now. Right now. This very instant! How on earth could anyone not spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?

We don't know exactly what those Newtown photographs show. But I want you – yes, you, the person reading this right now – to think about what we do know:

The six-year and seven-year-old children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were each hit up to eleven times by a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The muzzle velocity of a rifle like the AR-15 is about three times that of a handgun. And because the kinetic energy of a bullet equals one-half of the bullet's mass multiplied by its velocity squared, the potential destructive power of a bullet fired from a rifle is about nine times more than that of a similar bullet fired from a handgun.

Nine times more. I spoke to Dr. Victor Weedn, chairman of the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, who told me that chest x-rays of a person shot with a rifle will often look like a "snowstorm" because their bones will have been shattered into fragments. This happens not just because of the bullet's direct impact, but because each bullet sends a shock wave through the body's soft organs – one so powerful it can break bones even when the bullet didn't hit them. A video here shows what the shock wave looks like in the "ballistic gelatin" used by experts to simulate human tissue. (Would Gabby Giffords have survived if shot by a rifle rather than a Glock pistol? Probably not, says Dr. Weedn; the shock wave would have damaged the most critical parts of her brain.)

As horrifying as this is, there's more; much more. Dr. Cyril Wecht, past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, told me this:

The kind of ammunition used by the Newtown killer would have produced very extensive, severe and mutilating injuries of the head and face in these small victims. Depending on the number of shots striking a child’s head, substantial portions of the head would be literally blasted away. The underlying brain tissue would be extensively lacerated with portions of hemorrhagic brain tissue protruding through the fractured calvarium and basilar skull, some of which would remain on portions of the face...actual physical identification of each child would have been extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, even by the parents of any particular child.

We also know this, according to Dr. Wecht:

In one case, the parents have commented publicly upon the damage to their child, reporting that his chin and left hand were missing. Most probably, this child had brought his hand up to his face in shock and for protection and had the hand blasted away along with the lower part of his face.

Veronique Pozner, the mother of Noah, the six-year-old boy described by Dr. Wecht, insisted that the Governor of Connecticut look at Noah in an open casket. "I needed it to be real to him," she said. The Governor wept.

The pictures showing all this exist right now, somewhere in the police and medical examiner's files in Connecticut. And as of right now, we've somehow all decided together that we don't need to look, that in some way we're okay with what's in those pictures (after all, over 2,600 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown) – just as long as we don't have to look at the pictures ourselves.

But I am telling you now, that moment will come with the Newtown photos – and you will have to look. You will have to look at who and what we are, and what we've allowed to happen. At the end of World War II, General Eisenhower ordered that thousands of German civilians be forced to march through the concentration camps so they could witness what was happening just down the road from them during the years that they turned their gaze away, or didn't ask, or didn't do anything to stop the murder of millions.

We've done nothing since Columbine – nothing – and as a result there have been over 30 other mass shootings since then. Our inaction means that we are all, on some level, responsible – and therefore, because of our burying our heads in the sand, we must be forced to look at the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The people we've voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg – almost none of them, Democrat or Republican, dared to speak out against the NRA before Newtown – and yet we, the people, continued to vote for them. And for that we are responsible, and that is why we must look at the 20 dead children.

Most of us continue to say we "support the Second Amendment" as if it were written by God (or we're just afraid of being seen as anti-American). But this amendment was written by the same white men who thought a Negro was only 3/5 human. We've done nothing to revise or repeal this – and that makes us responsible, and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what's left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut.

And while you're looking at the heinous photographs, try saying those words out loud: "I support the Second Amendment!" Something, I'm guessing, won't feel right.

Yes, someday a Sandy Hook mother – or a Columbine mother, or an Aurora mother, or a mother from massacres yet to come – will say, like the mother of Emmett Till, "I just want the world to see." And then nothing about guns in this country will ever be the same again.

Pack your bags, NRA – you're about to be shown the door. Because we refuse to let another child die in this manner. Got it? I hope so.

All you can do now is hope no one releases those photos.

I believe this must be done, even if some of the families themselves do not wish it, and even if it will deeply hurt them further. That's horrible -- even unthinkable, but what options are left? Their children are already dead; this is about other children, who are now living. For the time being, anyway.

Please Google "Emmett Till Open Coffin Photo" to see what his mother did, in an attempt to stop lynchings and killings of young black kids like her son, in the south. This was in 1955, and things really did change to a great extent. And the photo helped. It wasn't easy for her.

One of the Newtown mothers, as you see above, made sure her son was seen. But the photos have not been published for the wider public. If the public is to demand action, and now with the Boston situation, not forget Newtown, this must be done.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches on, open-mouthed, thinking of the words of a very famous song:

"How many death will it take till he knowsThat too many people have died?"

Sad, isn't it. That country is cracking up just over this issue. Makes me feel glad I'm living in a small (and safer) part of the world.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:22 am

I posted this back in September, 2011:

I don't know if I've got this right, but this is how the US system seems to work.

A presidential candidate campaigns promising to do this & that.

This strikes a note with the electorate, & he becomes president.

But when he tries to implement the things he campaigned on, something [the senate/congress/Capital Hill/whatever] blocks his moves !

The electorate, now disillusioned with him, vote him out for not fulfilling his promises.

Daft, I call it !

Well, he didn't get voted out, but the gist of what I said seems to have been proved right.......

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:25 pm

Almost 90% of the American public support tighter checks.

After all the tragedies of the past few years, these senators still can't see any need for tighter gun controls !!. The NRA called the proposal by the govt as an "ineffective infringement on gun rights" ??????? ...... Unbelievable.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:28 pm

daylon wrote:Almost 90% of the American public support tighter checks.

After all the tragedies of the past few years, these senators still can't see any need for tighter gun controls !!. The NRA called the proposal by the govt as an "ineffective infringement on gun rights" ??????? ...... Unbelievable.

I am embarrassed for my country today and this has been a sad week since Monday. On top of this, an Elvis impersonator sends poison letters to the President. What is going on indeed!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:45 pm

Anything in the hands of people who misuse through intent or wrecklesness can become a lethal weapon...Should driving be banned because wreckless or drunk drivers kill other drivers and pedestrians? Should alcohol be outlawed because it kills 75,000 Americans each year? Should flying be banned because of 9/11?

The answer is surely to remove the threat by removing the human not the implement.

There are so many law breakers and lunatics out there who should be off the streets permanently or living in some sort of vast colony where they can hurt each other as much as they want but not have access to decent law abiding citizens. The police in areas of South Africa have cracked down on firearms offences with the result that the hospitals have become swamped by victims of knife attacks.

In the UK all the bad guys carry guns or knives. For decent citizens, it's illegal to even buy or use mace or cattle prods.

The US (2007 figures) is 28th on the list of "homicides by firearm" with 2.97 per 100,000 people. Considering that in the US there are 88 firearms to every 100 people, that is a relatively low number...

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:47 am

r&b wrote:

daylon wrote:Almost 90% of the American public support tighter checks.

After all the tragedies of the past few years, these senators still can't see any need for tighter gun controls !!. The NRA called the proposal by the govt as an "ineffective infringement on gun rights" ??????? ...... Unbelievable.

I am embarrassed for my country today and this has been a sad week since Monday. On top of this, an Elvis impersonator sends poison letters to the President. What is going on indeed!

The US of A is cracking up, man. It should be divided in three countries.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:45 am

I am so frustrated by the decision of some of our gut-less leaders in this country. This should have been a no-brainer and yet some of the elected officials appear to have let fear and special interest groups influence them. I share President Obama's frustration on this gut-less decision.

Not only is the Busch name instantly recognizable worldwide, resigning membership in this powerful organization is a major statement -- not to mention the scathing letter accompanying said resignation. Lest the letter be underestimated, LOTS of $$$$$ accompany the resignation. Money talks, and it talks loudest when it walks.

WTG, AB.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:55 am

Private ownership of guns should be banned.

It's rather weird to see The USA being bound by a centuries old Constitution.

NZ get on quite happily without one

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:04 am

Actually, our "centuries old Constitution" has served us rather well. But thank you for your concern.

We'll work it out. You can count on it.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:48 am

I'm proud of my country. After the President paraded around the families (who have every right to feel the way they do) for political purposes, we had brave enough men and women to reject those polices that dare to take away our freedom.

I do wish common sense could work. But that's not going to happen from either side. I felt I was in the middle of this issue, but the more I hear from liberals the more I realize they don't want common sense answers to our "gun problem". Their overreaching is what is leading myself and others to the NRA's side. For the first time in my life I'm considering becoming an official member.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:56 am

iplayastrat wrote:I'm proud of my country. After the President paraded around the families (who have every right to feel the way they do) for political purposes, we had brave enough men and women to reject those polices that dare to take away our freedom.

I do wish common sense could work. But that's not going to happen from either side. I felt I was in the middle of this issue, but the more I hear from liberals the more I realize they don't want common sense answers to our "gun problem". Their overreaching is what is leading myself and others to the NRA's side. For the first time in my life I'm considering becoming an official member.

So you're against background checks?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:16 am

MaryAnn wrote:So you're against background checks?

MaryAnn, That's not a simple answer. I'm hesitant to give away any of our freedom. We have so many laws now that they can pick and choose which to bring charges against you. Short story, there was a local guy who was suspected for murder. The authorities couldn't find enough evidence to hold him on that charge. So what did they do? They found some prescription drugs in his vehicle that weren't his and he was also carrying a gun. They were able to throw him in jail on these unrelated charges. Why? Because they were embarrassed they didn't have enough to hold and convict him for murder. The gun and narcotics together was their way out. An excuse.

I'm for a waiting period for all firearms. But I do hesitate on background checks especially on private sales.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:26 am

iplayastrat wrote:

MaryAnn wrote:So you're against background checks?

MaryAnn, That's not a simple answer. I'm hesitant to give away any of our freedom. We have so many laws now that they can pick and choose which to bring charges against you. Short story, there was a local guy who was suspected for murder. The authorities couldn't find enough evidence to hold him on that charge. So what did they do? They found some prescription drugs in his vehicle that weren't his and he was also carrying a gun. They were able to throw him in jail on these unrelated charges. Why? Because they were embarrassed they didn't have enough to hold and convict him for murder. The gun and narcotics together was their way out. An excuse.

I'm for a waiting period for all firearms. But I do hesitate on background checks especially on private sales.

Thanks for your response, iplayastrat. I agree it is complicated. But a background check at the point of purchase, BEFORE any incident, seems rational. Don't you agree?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:39 am

carolynlm wrote:News has just come over the radio that a policeman (security guard?) at a Boston campus has been shot dead.

Dan MacDonald, 40, sitting in a second story Watertown apartment, said he first heard sirens, then gunshots.

"It was about 10 to 15 shots. then there was an onslaught," he said. "There were 25 to 60 shots within 45 seconds. Then the shots stopped and boom. It was like dynamite."

If you have international news, although I hate to recommend CNN after yesterday, but if you do, it's all on live right now. "Turn on your TV!" Or something to that effect . . . there were also explosions, a suspect is on the ground, and this may or may not be related to the Marathon case.

Here's a shot right off my TV, a moment ago:

2013-04-18 23.50.46_resize.jpg

rjm

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:56 pm

MaryAnn wrote:

iplayastrat wrote:

MaryAnn wrote:So you're against background checks?

MaryAnn, That's not a simple answer. I'm hesitant to give away any of our freedom. We have so many laws now that they can pick and choose which to bring charges against you. Short story, there was a local guy who was suspected for murder. The authorities couldn't find enough evidence to hold him on that charge. So what did they do? They found some prescription drugs in his vehicle that weren't his and he was also carrying a gun. They were able to throw him in jail on these unrelated charges. Why? Because they were embarrassed they didn't have enough to hold and convict him for murder. The gun and narcotics together was their way out. An excuse.

I'm for a waiting period for all firearms. But I do hesitate on background checks especially on private sales.

Thanks for your response, iplayastrat. I agree it is complicated. But a background check at the point of purchase, BEFORE any incident, seems rational. Don't you agree?

Complicated? Not really. It's about a background check to see if you had a prison record or mental illness? That's basically what this bill was doing. Seems like perfect common sense to me and has nothing to do with taking away your freedom. Its taking away the right for these people to own a weapon!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:14 pm

iplayastrat wrote:I'm proud of my country. After the President paraded around the families (who have every right to feel the way they do) for political purposes, we had brave enough men and women to reject those polices that dare to take away our freedom.

I do wish common sense could work. But that's not going to happen from either side. I felt I was in the middle of this issue, but the more I hear from liberals the more I realize they don't want common sense answers to our "gun problem". Their overreaching is what is leading myself and others to the NRA's side. For the first time in my life I'm considering becoming an official member.

Would you feel the same way if your daughter was killed by a schizophrenic in a shooting at her school, when a law requiring background checks would have prevented him from getting a gun?

Cos that's the question here.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:43 pm

Peter, some of the gun control advocates have stated (correctly) that an expanded background check would not have prevented the Newtown massacre.

Maryann, we already have background checks at the point of purchase from dealers. It's private sales that are unregulated.

Folks, some of you seem to be putting a bit too much emphasis on the failure of the background check amendment (which failed by 6 votes, with 5 democrats crossing over to vote against it). But the assault weapons ban failed by 20 votes (15 democrats voted no), and the amendment to regulate large capacity clips also fell by 14 votes (10 dems crossed over). At least the background check vote was relatively close, and could eventually be passed with some tweaking.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:55 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Peter, some of the gun control advocates have stated (correctly) that an expanded background check would not have prevented the Newtown massacre.

Maryann, we already have background checks at the point of purchase from dealers. It's private sales that are unregulated.

Folks, some of you seem to be putting a bit too much emphasis on the failure of the background check amendment (which failed by 6 votes, with 5 democrats crossing over to vote against it). But the assault weapons ban failed by 20 votes (15 democrats voted no), and the amendment to regulate large capacity clips also fell by 14 votes (10 dems crossed over). At least the background check vote was relatively close, and could eventually be passed with some tweaking.

Yes, but the background check vote was the only one that even had a remote possibility of being passed. Quite why a check to make sure that the mentally ill do not buy guns is so controvertial is bizarre. And while the Newtown killing might not have been prevented, the cinema shooting would probably have been. This shouldn't be a controvertial measure, it should be common sense in the same way that criminal records are checked before someone is allowed to work with kids (in the UK at least) to try to prevent sexual abuse. No, you can't stop all cases of either shooting or sexual abuse, but you can take sensible measures. Your kids over there deserve that.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:12 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Yes, but the background check vote was the only one that even had a remote possibility of being passed. Quite why a check to make sure that the mentally ill do not buy guns is so controvertial is bizarre. And while the Newtown killing might not have been prevented, the cinema shooting would probably have been. This shouldn't be a controvertial measure, it should be common sense in the same way that criminal records are checked before someone is allowed to work with kids (in the UK at least) to try to prevent sexual abuse. No, you can't stop all cases of either shooting or sexual abuse, but you can take sensible measures. Your kids over there deserve that.

I agree, Peter, and was somewhat surprised that the measure didn't pass. But 4 of the 5 democrats who crossed over to vote against the measure are up for re-election in 2014, and are from red states that voted for Romney last November and have extremely pro-gun rural populations. So these democrats are politically vulnerable. I do think the issue will be re-visited in the near future and will pass.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:07 pm

"I'm hesitant to give away any of our freedom."

I can´t even understand how weapons and guns on private hands have anything to do with your so-called freedom. Are you talking about freedom to shoot at anything or anyone trespassing? Only a very sick society...you let common sense prevail when you elected your President for a second term, and now you let people like NRA (or what the f**k they call themselves these days) among others to cause problems over such stupidity as the right for anyone to carry or own firearms??! Some freedom...

Sincerely MB280E

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:18 pm

This Senate vote shows us several things:

(1) The NRA is a very powerful lobby(2) Money talks and bullshit walks(3) Most U.S. politicians have absolutely no moral compass(4) It's OK for mentally ill people to kill scores of children with weapons of war